Some of the insurance complaints we deal with involve
the customerís failure to disclose Ďspentí motoring convictions to their
insurer. These cases often reveal customersí confusion about whether
they must disclose previous convictions. For example, someone applying
for motor insurance six years after they were convicted of a drink-driving
offence may consider that, since the endorsement remains on their licence
for 11 years, they are obliged to disclose the conviction to the insurer.
However, under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, the conviction
is Ďspentí after five years.

Nevertheless, some firms ask customers applying for
insurance: 'Have you or anyone who is to drive the vehicle been convicted
of any offence within the last five years or had his licence endorsed
within the last 11 years?'

A High Court decision (in the case, R v DVLA &
Another, ex parte Pearson [2002]) indicates that it is an unlawful breach
of statutory duty for firms to rely on endorsements relating to spent
convictions in order to disadvantage a driver.

The driver in the case, a Mr Pearson, had a spent conviction for drink-driving,
but the endorsement was still on his licence. Some time after his offence
and conviction, Mr Pearson trained and qualified as a driver of heavy
goods vehicles. Inevitably, however, prospective employers asked to
see his licence and they declined to take his job application further
after seeing the endorsement.

Mr Pearsonís action
against the DVLA (Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency) and the Secretary
of State was brought under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998, as
he claimed Ďbreach of his right to respect for his private lifeí. He
sought to establish that because the endorsement remained on his licence
beyond the rehabilitation period, it interfered with his private life
(by preventing him from obtaining employment).

The judge dismissed
the claim on the basis that Mr Pearsonís human rights had not been infringed.
However, the judge commented on the purpose of endorsements and, arguably,
his comments have implications for insurers. The judge pointed out that
the endorsement of a drink-driving conviction remains on a driverís
licence for 11 years, for the purpose of any future sentencing, and
he stated 'I see no reason why, if he had any evidence, a rehabilitated
drink driver who is refused a driving job simply by reason of his spent
conviction should not be able to maintain an action for breach of statutory
duty'.

By way of analogy,
there seems no reason why a rehabilitated drink-driver, if he had evidence,
would not have an equally strong case if he was refused insurance or
was given less favourable terms and conditions than other policyholders,
simply because of his spent conviction. If firms insist on asking questions
about spent convictions, then they must effectively ignore the answers
they receive. Otherwise, we are likely to consider they have breached
their statutory duty.

Similarly, if a
firm cancels the policy of a customer who has a spent conviction (but
whose licence is still endorsed), simply because the customer did not
disclose the endorsement, then we will uphold the customerís complaint.